Preamble: Without reviewing an exact transcript of what was said, I can't really get into specifics of the incident and the only thing I can really hazard a guess at is that it sounds like there was some context or nuance to the situation that adds something significant to the chain of events.
Per our rules we don't necessarily have banned words, just banned intentions. I'm by no means an etymologist but a casual read on Wikipedia at least suggests that "cracker" potentially has more neutral usages in the common vernacular (as opposed to the typical slurs seen used to deride or insult non-Caucasians - which often have their roots in historical oppression by a white majority. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(term)), so it might have been allowable in context, even if not desirable. Many terms which are considered offensive in some regions are considered acceptable in others due to cultural norms - which makes it very difficult to comprise one-size-fits-all rules. Ideally we wouldn't see these terms at all, but the Internet being what it is, that's basically a pipe dream.
This doesn't mean there is a carte-blanche exclusion for epithets targeting Caucasians, and if something violates our rules, regardless of whom it targets, staff are expected to act on it.
Per the preamble I can't really say anything specifically about this case without more detail. If you're interested in making a formal complaint (rather than just clarification of how I expect our rules to be enforced) I'm certainly willing to look into a specific incident to revise staff guidelines - if you are able to provide more detail, such as a date/time and whether this transpired in voice or text chat, I can review anything we've logged to try to gain more insight.
~Vintage
